Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Party Politics

It’s the June of 2011. Andrew Breibart has spent the past few days touring the country, touting photos of a shirtless man, claiming the photos to be of New York’s Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner. Soon enough, the photos would circulate throughout the American media, and it would be confirmed that the photos were indeed of Mr. Weiner and that they were used in an attempt to solicit women over Twitter. The photos started a political firestorm, with members of both of America’s two political parties denouncing Weiner’s immature, inappropriate actions and the embarrassing shadow they cast upon the state of American political discourse. Although the initial criticism was nearly entirely from the Right, within a week, the top Democrat partiers all made statements denouncing Weiner’s behavior and calling for him to resign.

Of course, the hesitation on the part of the Democrats to throw one of their own from the train (albeit deservedly) only increased the criticism from Republicans, some of whom challenged House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to answer whether they “believe[d] members of Congress are held to a different set of ethical standards.”[1] Of course, in due time, the Democratic party made their denunciations, Weiner apologized for his idiocy and resigned in an attempt to make up for his stupid behavior.

Not perfect, but this might be the closest example to a group of contemporary politicians properly handling a party scandal. The leading Democrats, from Congress to the White House, all distanced themselves from the actions of their fellow party member. They made it clear that they, both as individuals and as an entire party, do not in any way condone or associate with what Anthony Weiner did and said.

Shifting focus to the other side of the aisle, we see an entirely separate slew of idiocy. Following Todd Akin’s dissertation regarding the distinction between illegitimate and legitimate rape, a Senate hopeful from Indiana, Richard Mourdock made this statement during a campaign debate:

“…even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen…”

Perhaps he misspoke, in claiming, through some twisted logic, that rape-pregnancies should be considered some kind of gift from god. We can only hope so. However, his comments in the aftermath of this debate were rather ambiguous. Instead of making an effort to rescind his offensive comments, Mourdock merely said that he “cannot unring the bell” and he “cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube.”[2] So, his regret lies not in the fact that he said something horrible and stupid, but that voters found out he believes something horrible and stupid.

Of course Democrats reacted to these remarks like a coyote pouncing upon a defenseless field mouse, as did anyone who is even slightly hesitant about categorizing one of the most heinous human actions as just another thing God intended.

And of course Republicans saw through the bloodlust obscuring their vision now that Election Day is in sight. Of course even the comrades of Mourdock could understand how downright stupid his comments were, how blatantly offensive and archaic they were. One can at least dream.

And one must continue to dream, at least if one would like to treat the above scenario as reality. Take Mitt Romney, just as an example. Unfortunate timing caused a television commercial, in which Romney endorses and urges fellow Republicans to support Mourdock, to air just about the same time as Mourdock made his gift-rape comments. Romney’s reaction was, the day after the debate, have a spokeswoman make a statement that Romney “disagrees with Richard Mourdock, and Mr.Mourdock's comments do not reflect Gov. Romney's views,”[3] which is a statement that amounts to nothing more than lip service to the actual issue. The Presidential-hopeful has made no effort to retract his endorsement of Mr. Gift-Rape.

This all raises the question of what the Republicans actually believe. Clearly, the party’s social policy has been hijacked by a bunch of religious fundamentalists who believe the Christian Bible should be treated as the basis for all Western law. And these recent statements only seem to reinforce the misogynist and otherwise bigoted views being adopted by the Republican Party, views that are not in the slightest being challenged by the more moderate conservatives. And people are still voting Republican?

A little less than two weeks ago, mere days before Mourdock enlightened the American public, Ben Stein made an appearance on Fox News. During his segment on the air, Mr. Stein made a shocking comment: "Taxes are too low." He said this amidst a thousand apologies. Before he finished speaking, Stein was apologizing. He was well aware, unlike Mourdock and Akin, of how truly offensive this statement could be. He wondered whether he would be “allowed to leave here alive,” even while daring to suggest that the best period of economic growth in the United States was when taxes were highest. His comments left the Fox & Friends crew, and conservatives nationwide, stunned.

The Republican Party, where misogyny, bigotry and racism are accepted, but calling for higher taxes is an offense deserving of exile.

No comments:

Post a Comment